Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 721

control, N = 361

treatment, N = 361

p-value2

age

72

50.90 ± 12.59 (25 - 74)

50.74 ± 13.31 (25 - 74)

51.07 ± 12.01 (31 - 72)

0.912

gender

72

0.795

f

51 (71%)

25 (69%)

26 (72%)

m

21 (29%)

11 (31%)

10 (28%)

occupation

72

0.967

day_training

1 (1.4%)

1 (2.8%)

0 (0%)

full_time

7 (9.7%)

4 (11%)

3 (8.3%)

homemaker

6 (8.3%)

3 (8.3%)

3 (8.3%)

other

2 (2.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (5.6%)

part_time

14 (19%)

7 (19%)

7 (19%)

retired

15 (21%)

7 (19%)

8 (22%)

self_employ

2 (2.8%)

1 (2.8%)

1 (2.8%)

student

1 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.8%)

t_and_e

2 (2.8%)

1 (2.8%)

1 (2.8%)

unemploy

22 (31%)

12 (33%)

10 (28%)

marital

72

0.792

cohabitation

1 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.8%)

divore

9 (12%)

6 (17%)

3 (8.3%)

married

15 (21%)

7 (19%)

8 (22%)

none

41 (57%)

20 (56%)

21 (58%)

seperation

3 (4.2%)

2 (5.6%)

1 (2.8%)

widow

3 (4.2%)

1 (2.8%)

2 (5.6%)

edu

72

0.989

bachelor

21 (29%)

9 (25%)

12 (33%)

diploma

12 (17%)

7 (19%)

5 (14%)

hd_ad

3 (4.2%)

2 (5.6%)

1 (2.8%)

postgraduate

6 (8.3%)

3 (8.3%)

3 (8.3%)

primary

5 (6.9%)

2 (5.6%)

3 (8.3%)

secondary_1_3

8 (11%)

4 (11%)

4 (11%)

secondary_4_5

15 (21%)

8 (22%)

7 (19%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.8%)

1 (2.8%)

1 (2.8%)

fam_income

72

0.959

10001_12000

4 (5.6%)

1 (2.8%)

3 (8.3%)

12001_14000

4 (5.6%)

2 (5.6%)

2 (5.6%)

14001_16000

5 (6.9%)

2 (5.6%)

3 (8.3%)

16001_18000

2 (2.8%)

1 (2.8%)

1 (2.8%)

18001_20000

4 (5.6%)

3 (8.3%)

1 (2.8%)

20001_above

11 (15%)

6 (17%)

5 (14%)

2001_4000

9 (12%)

6 (17%)

3 (8.3%)

4001_6000

10 (14%)

4 (11%)

6 (17%)

6001_8000

7 (9.7%)

4 (11%)

3 (8.3%)

8001_10000

7 (9.7%)

3 (8.3%)

4 (11%)

below_2000

9 (12%)

4 (11%)

5 (14%)

medication

72

62 (86%)

32 (89%)

30 (83%)

0.496

onset_duration

72

15.18 ± 11.55 (0 - 56)

16.56 ± 12.92 (1 - 56)

13.80 ± 9.99 (0 - 35)

0.314

onset_age

72

35.72 ± 13.98 (14 - 64)

34.17 ± 13.18 (14 - 58)

37.26 ± 14.76 (15 - 64)

0.352

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 721

control, N = 361

treatment, N = 361

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

72

3.12 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.11 ± 1.28 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

0.925

recovery_stage_b

72

17.97 ± 2.63 (9 - 23)

17.92 ± 2.69 (9 - 23)

18.03 ± 2.60 (13 - 23)

0.859

ras_confidence

72

30.36 ± 4.80 (19 - 43)

29.78 ± 4.19 (19 - 40)

30.94 ± 5.34 (20 - 43)

0.306

ras_willingness

72

12.10 ± 1.96 (7 - 15)

11.92 ± 1.87 (9 - 15)

12.28 ± 2.05 (7 - 15)

0.438

ras_goal

72

17.50 ± 2.99 (12 - 24)

17.47 ± 2.97 (12 - 24)

17.53 ± 3.06 (12 - 24)

0.938

ras_reliance

72

13.21 ± 2.83 (8 - 20)

12.97 ± 2.61 (8 - 18)

13.44 ± 3.05 (8 - 20)

0.483

ras_domination

72

9.92 ± 2.25 (3 - 15)

10.39 ± 1.95 (6 - 15)

9.44 ± 2.45 (3 - 14)

0.075

symptom

72

30.11 ± 9.82 (14 - 56)

31.00 ± 9.62 (14 - 52)

29.22 ± 10.07 (15 - 56)

0.446

slof_work

72

22.72 ± 4.92 (10 - 30)

22.69 ± 4.50 (15 - 30)

22.75 ± 5.37 (10 - 30)

0.962

slof_relationship

72

25.74 ± 6.04 (11 - 35)

25.53 ± 6.26 (13 - 35)

25.94 ± 5.88 (11 - 35)

0.772

satisfaction

72

20.69 ± 6.85 (5 - 32)

19.25 ± 6.53 (5 - 29)

22.14 ± 6.94 (5 - 32)

0.073

mhc_emotional

72

11.19 ± 3.85 (3 - 18)

10.78 ± 3.43 (3 - 17)

11.61 ± 4.24 (4 - 18)

0.362

mhc_social

72

15.03 ± 5.45 (6 - 30)

15.31 ± 5.49 (7 - 30)

14.75 ± 5.47 (6 - 26)

0.668

mhc_psychological

72

22.26 ± 6.08 (6 - 36)

21.89 ± 5.72 (10 - 36)

22.64 ± 6.48 (6 - 36)

0.604

resilisnce

72

16.50 ± 4.53 (6 - 27)

16.17 ± 4.34 (6 - 24)

16.83 ± 4.75 (7 - 27)

0.536

social_provision

72

13.65 ± 2.95 (5 - 20)

13.28 ± 2.53 (8 - 20)

14.03 ± 3.32 (5 - 20)

0.284

els_value_living

72

17.25 ± 2.94 (5 - 25)

16.61 ± 2.36 (12 - 22)

17.89 ± 3.34 (5 - 25)

0.065

els_life_fulfill

72

12.76 ± 3.33 (4 - 20)

11.78 ± 3.07 (5 - 17)

13.75 ± 3.32 (4 - 20)

0.011

els

72

30.01 ± 5.64 (9 - 45)

28.39 ± 4.48 (20 - 36)

31.64 ± 6.25 (9 - 45)

0.013

social_connect

72

26.97 ± 9.46 (8 - 48)

27.61 ± 8.17 (8 - 45)

26.33 ± 10.68 (8 - 48)

0.570

shs_agency

72

14.47 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

13.89 ± 4.57 (3 - 21)

15.06 ± 5.29 (3 - 24)

0.320

shs_pathway

72

16.61 ± 3.95 (4 - 24)

16.22 ± 3.80 (8 - 24)

17.00 ± 4.11 (4 - 23)

0.407

shs

72

31.08 ± 8.43 (7 - 47)

30.11 ± 8.02 (13 - 45)

32.06 ± 8.83 (7 - 47)

0.331

esteem

72

12.65 ± 1.50 (10 - 18)

12.83 ± 1.56 (10 - 18)

12.47 ± 1.44 (10 - 16)

0.311

mlq_search

72

14.92 ± 3.33 (3 - 21)

14.81 ± 3.12 (6 - 21)

15.03 ± 3.57 (3 - 21)

0.780

mlq_presence

72

13.50 ± 4.12 (3 - 21)

13.47 ± 3.53 (5 - 20)

13.53 ± 4.70 (3 - 21)

0.955

mlq

72

28.42 ± 6.65 (6 - 42)

28.28 ± 5.87 (12 - 40)

28.56 ± 7.42 (6 - 42)

0.861

empower

72

19.51 ± 4.12 (6 - 28)

19.11 ± 3.76 (11 - 24)

19.92 ± 4.46 (6 - 28)

0.410

ismi_resistance

72

14.60 ± 2.66 (5 - 20)

14.31 ± 2.24 (11 - 19)

14.89 ± 3.03 (5 - 20)

0.356

ismi_discrimation

72

11.29 ± 3.21 (5 - 19)

12.22 ± 2.83 (5 - 18)

10.36 ± 3.33 (5 - 19)

0.013

sss_affective

72

9.97 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

10.50 ± 3.47 (3 - 18)

9.44 ± 4.13 (3 - 18)

0.244

sss_behavior

72

9.65 ± 3.95 (3 - 18)

10.39 ± 3.95 (3 - 18)

8.92 ± 3.86 (3 - 18)

0.115

sss_cognitive

72

8.31 ± 3.98 (3 - 18)

8.61 ± 4.20 (3 - 18)

8.00 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.519

sss

72

27.93 ± 10.90 (9 - 54)

29.50 ± 10.49 (9 - 54)

26.36 ± 11.23 (9 - 54)

0.224

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.11

0.203

2.71, 3.51

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.028

0.287

-0.535, 0.590

0.923

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.158

0.289

-0.409, 0.725

0.587

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.187

0.413

-0.624, 0.997

0.654

Pseudo R square

0.012

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.448

17.0, 18.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.111

0.633

-1.13, 1.35

0.861

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.368

0.606

-1.55, 0.820

0.547

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.895

0.866

-0.802, 2.59

0.306

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.839

28.1, 31.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.17

1.186

-1.16, 3.49

0.328

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.349

0.818

-1.26, 1.95

0.672

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.269

1.171

-2.03, 2.56

0.819

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.9

0.333

11.3, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.361

0.470

-0.561, 1.28

0.445

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.631

0.321

-1.26, -0.002

0.056

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.469

0.459

-0.431, 1.37

0.313

Pseudo R square

0.029

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.523

16.4, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.056

0.739

-1.39, 1.50

0.940

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.908

0.552

-1.99, 0.174

0.107

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.52

0.790

-0.027, 3.07

0.060

Pseudo R square

0.023

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.459

12.1, 13.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.472

0.649

-0.800, 1.74

0.469

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.453

0.408

-0.348, 1.25

0.274

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.615

0.585

-0.531, 1.76

0.299

Pseudo R square

0.034

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.4

0.367

9.67, 11.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.944

0.520

-1.96, 0.074

0.072

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.566

0.468

-1.48, 0.351

0.232

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.37

0.669

0.060, 2.68

0.046

Pseudo R square

0.033

symptom

(Intercept)

31.0

1.638

27.8, 34.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.78

2.316

-6.32, 2.76

0.445

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.097

1.183

-2.22, 2.42

0.935

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.738

1.695

-4.06, 2.58

0.665

Pseudo R square

0.011

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.7

0.826

21.1, 24.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.056

1.168

-2.23, 2.34

0.962

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.728

0.619

-1.94, 0.486

0.247

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.563

0.887

-2.30, 1.17

0.529

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.5

0.998

23.6, 27.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.417

1.412

-2.35, 3.18

0.769

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.06

0.900

-2.82, 0.703

0.245

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.656

1.288

-1.87, 3.18

0.614

Pseudo R square

0.007

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.3

1.161

17.0, 21.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.89

1.642

-0.330, 6.11

0.082

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.736

1.184

-1.59, 3.06

0.537

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.19

1.695

-4.51, 2.13

0.486

Pseudo R square

0.032

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.8

0.636

9.53, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.833

0.900

-0.930, 2.60

0.357

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.468

0.542

-0.594, 1.53

0.393

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.13

0.775

-2.65, 0.389

0.153

Pseudo R square

0.008

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.3

0.942

13.5, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.556

1.332

-3.17, 2.05

0.678

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.04

0.904

-0.728, 2.82

0.255

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.55

1.294

-4.09, 0.986

0.238

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.9

1.065

19.8, 24.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.750

1.507

-2.20, 3.70

0.620

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.607

1.024

-1.40, 2.61

0.556

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.62

1.465

-4.50, 1.25

0.274

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.721

14.8, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.667

1.020

-1.33, 2.67

0.515

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.208

0.719

-1.20, 1.62

0.774

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.343

1.029

-1.67, 2.36

0.741

Pseudo R square

0.010

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.502

12.3, 14.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.750

0.710

-0.642, 2.14

0.294

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.930

0.557

-2.02, 0.161

0.101

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.906

0.796

-0.655, 2.47

0.261

Pseudo R square

0.041

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.488

15.7, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.28

0.690

-0.075, 2.63

0.068

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.285

0.450

-0.597, 1.17

0.530

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.204

0.644

-1.47, 1.06

0.752

Pseudo R square

0.042

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.8

0.517

10.8, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.97

0.731

0.539, 3.41

0.009

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.924

0.488

-0.033, 1.88

0.065

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.911

0.699

-2.28, 0.459

0.200

Pseudo R square

0.075

els

(Intercept)

28.4

0.903

26.6, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.25

1.277

0.748, 5.75

0.013

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.18

0.771

-0.332, 2.69

0.133

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.08

1.104

-3.24, 1.08

0.334

Pseudo R square

0.071

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.6

1.582

24.5, 30.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.28

2.237

-5.66, 3.11

0.570

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.808

1.144

-1.44, 3.05

0.484

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.995

1.639

-4.21, 2.22

0.547

Pseudo R square

0.008

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.9

0.826

12.3, 15.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.17

1.168

-1.12, 3.46

0.321

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.277

0.774

-1.24, 1.79

0.722

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.469

1.107

-1.70, 2.64

0.674

Pseudo R square

0.021

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.2

0.657

14.9, 17.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.778

0.929

-1.04, 2.60

0.405

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.345

0.590

-0.812, 1.50

0.562

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.363

0.845

-2.02, 1.29

0.670

Pseudo R square

0.008

shs

(Intercept)

30.1

1.399

27.4, 32.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.94

1.978

-1.93, 5.82

0.329

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.625

1.235

-1.80, 3.05

0.616

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.112

1.768

-3.35, 3.58

0.950

Pseudo R square

0.015

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.235

12.4, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.361

0.333

-1.01, 0.291

0.281

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.177

0.351

-0.512, 0.866

0.618

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.155

0.502

-0.828, 1.14

0.759

Pseudo R square

0.020

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.8

0.564

13.7, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.222

0.798

-1.34, 1.79

0.781

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.382

0.665

-1.69, 0.922

0.568

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.348

0.951

-1.52, 2.21

0.716

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.5

0.675

12.1, 14.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.056

0.955

-1.82, 1.93

0.954

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.108

0.735

-1.55, 1.33

0.884

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.235

1.052

-1.83, 2.30

0.824

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq

(Intercept)

28.3

1.125

26.1, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.278

1.591

-2.84, 3.40

0.862

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.493

1.258

-2.96, 1.97

0.697

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.579

1.800

-2.95, 4.11

0.749

Pseudo R square

0.002

empower

(Intercept)

19.1

0.671

17.8, 20.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.806

0.948

-1.05, 2.66

0.398

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.261

0.582

-1.40, 0.880

0.656

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.404

0.833

-2.04, 1.23

0.630

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.419

13.5, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.583

0.593

-0.578, 1.74

0.327

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.182

0.553

-0.901, 1.27

0.743

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.313

0.790

-1.86, 1.24

0.693

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.2

0.525

11.2, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.86

0.742

-3.32, -0.406

0.014

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.510

0.501

-1.49, 0.472

0.314

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.933

0.717

-0.472, 2.34

0.200

Pseudo R square

0.061

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.5

0.616

9.29, 11.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.06

0.871

-2.76, 0.652

0.229

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.214

0.505

-0.776, 1.20

0.674

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.08

0.723

-2.49, 0.339

0.143

Pseudo R square

0.042

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.4

0.626

9.16, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.47

0.885

-3.21, 0.263

0.100

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.283

0.617

-1.49, 0.926

0.648

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.446

0.883

-2.18, 1.28

0.616

Pseudo R square

0.049

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.61

0.651

7.34, 9.89

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.611

0.920

-2.41, 1.19

0.509

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.03

0.509

0.029, 2.02

0.051

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.83

0.729

-3.25, -0.397

0.016

Pseudo R square

0.037

sss

(Intercept)

29.5

1.760

26.1, 32.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.14

2.489

-8.02, 1.74

0.211

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.05

1.301

-1.50, 3.60

0.426

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.37

1.863

-7.02, 0.284

0.078

Pseudo R square

0.046

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.71, 3.51], t(105) = 15.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.59], t(105) = 0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.73], t(105) = 0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.60])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.00], t(105) = 0.45, p = 0.652; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.92 (95% CI [17.04, 18.79], t(105) = 40.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.13, 1.35], t(105) = 0.18, p = 0.861; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.82], t(105) = -0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.59], t(105) = 1.03, p = 0.301; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.97])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.78 (95% CI [28.13, 31.42], t(105) = 35.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.16, 3.49], t(105) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.95], t(105) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-2.03, 2.56], t(105) = 0.23, p = 0.818; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.92 (95% CI [11.26, 12.57], t(105) = 35.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.28], t(105) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.26, -2.17e-03], t(105) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.63, -1.08e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.37], t(105) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.47 (95% CI [16.45, 18.50], t(105) = 33.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.50], t(105) = 0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.17], t(105) = -1.64, p = 0.100; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-0.03, 3.07], t(105) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-8.47e-03, 0.97])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.97 (95% CI [12.07, 13.87], t(105) = 28.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.74], t(105) = 0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.25], t(105) = 1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.76], t(105) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.39 (95% CI [9.67, 11.11], t(105) = 28.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.07], t(105) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.35], t(105) = -1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [0.06, 2.68], t(105) = 2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.03, 1.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [27.79, 34.21], t(105) = 18.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-6.32, 2.76], t(105) = -0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.42], t(105) = 0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = 9.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-4.06, 2.58], t(105) = -0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.69 (95% CI [21.08, 24.31], t(105) = 27.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.23, 2.34], t(105) = 0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.94, 0.49], t(105) = -1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-2.30, 1.17], t(105) = -0.64, p = 0.525; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.53 (95% CI [23.57, 27.48], t(105) = 25.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-2.35, 3.18], t(105) = 0.30, p = 0.768; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.70], t(105) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.87, 3.18], t(105) = 0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.25 (95% CI [16.97, 21.53], t(105) = 16.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.89, 95% CI [-0.33, 6.11], t(105) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.87])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.59, 3.06], t(105) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-4.51, 2.13], t(105) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.78 (95% CI [9.53, 12.02], t(105) = 16.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.93, 2.60], t(105) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.53], t(105) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.65, 0.39], t(105) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.31 (95% CI [13.46, 17.15], t(105) = 16.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-3.17, 2.05], t(105) = -0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.82], t(105) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.55, 95% CI [-4.09, 0.99], t(105) = -1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.89 (95% CI [19.80, 23.98], t(105) = 20.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-2.20, 3.70], t(105) = 0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.61], t(105) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.62, 95% CI [-4.50, 1.25], t(105) = -1.11, p = 0.268; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.17 (95% CI [14.75, 17.58], t(105) = 22.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.67], t(105) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.62], t(105) = 0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.67, 2.36], t(105) = 0.33, p = 0.739; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.28 (95% CI [12.29, 14.26], t(105) = 26.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.14], t(105) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.16], t(105) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.47], t(105) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.61 (95% CI [15.65, 17.57], t(105) = 34.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.63], t(105) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.88])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.17], t(105) = 0.63, p = 0.527; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.06], t(105) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.78 (95% CI [10.76, 12.79], t(105) = 22.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.97, 95% CI [0.54, 3.41], t(105) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.17, 1.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.88], t(105) = 1.89, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.59])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-2.28, 0.46], t(105) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.39 (95% CI [26.62, 30.16], t(105) = 31.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.25, 95% CI [0.75, 5.75], t(105) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.58, 95% CI [0.13, 1.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.69], t(105) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-3.24, 1.08], t(105) = -0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.61 (95% CI [24.51, 30.71], t(105) = 17.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-5.66, 3.11], t(105) = -0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.44, 3.05], t(105) = 0.71, p = 0.480; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-4.21, 2.22], t(105) = -0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.89 (95% CI [12.27, 15.51], t(105) = 16.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.12, 3.46], t(105) = 1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.79], t(105) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.64], t(105) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.22 (95% CI [14.93, 17.51], t(105) = 24.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.60], t(105) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.50], t(105) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.02, 1.29], t(105) = -0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.11 (95% CI [27.37, 32.85], t(105) = 21.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.94, 95% CI [-1.93, 5.82], t(105) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.05], t(105) = 0.51, p = 0.613; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-3.35, 3.58], t(105) = 0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.27) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.83 (95% CI [12.37, 13.29], t(105) = 54.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.29], t(105) = -1.09, p = 0.278; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.87], t(105) = 0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.62])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.14], t(105) = 0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.81 (95% CI [13.70, 15.91], t(105) = 26.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.34, 1.79], t(105) = 0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.92], t(105) = -0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.21], t(105) = 0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.86e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.47 (95% CI [12.15, 14.80], t(105) = 19.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.82, 1.93], t(105) = 0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.33], t(105) = -0.15, p = 0.884; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.83, 2.30], t(105) = 0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.28 (95% CI [26.07, 30.48], t(105) = 25.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-2.84, 3.40], t(105) = 0.17, p = 0.861; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-2.96, 1.97], t(105) = -0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-2.95, 4.11], t(105) = 0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.11 (95% CI [17.80, 20.43], t(105) = 28.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.66], t(105) = 0.85, p = 0.396; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.88], t(105) = -0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.23], t(105) = -0.49, p = 0.628; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.75e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.31 (95% CI [13.48, 15.13], t(105) = 34.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.74], t(105) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.27], t(105) = 0.33, p = 0.741; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.24], t(105) = -0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.22 (95% CI [11.19, 13.25], t(105) = 23.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-3.32, -0.41], t(105) = -2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.47], t(105) = -1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.34], t(105) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.50 (95% CI [9.29, 11.71], t(105) = 17.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.76, 0.65], t(105) = -1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.20], t(105) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-2.49, 0.34], t(105) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.39 (95% CI [9.16, 11.62], t(105) = 16.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-3.21, 0.26], t(105) = -1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.93], t(105) = -0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.18, 1.28], t(105) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.61 (95% CI [7.34, 9.89], t(105) = 13.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.41, 1.19], t(105) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.03, 2.02], t(105) = 2.02, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [7.45e-03, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.83, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.40], t(105) = -2.50, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.50 (95% CI [26.05, 32.95], t(105) = 16.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.14, 95% CI [-8.02, 1.74], t(105) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.50, 3.60], t(105) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.37, 95% CI [-7.02, 0.28], t(105) = -1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

357.680

365.809

-175.840

351.680

recovery_stage_a

random

6

361.877

378.135

-174.939

349.877

1.803

3

0.614

recovery_stage_b

null

3

530.534

538.663

-262.267

524.534

recovery_stage_b

random

6

534.928

551.185

-261.464

522.928

1.606

3

0.658

ras_confidence

null

3

649.416

657.545

-321.708

643.416

ras_confidence

random

6

653.452

669.709

-320.726

641.452

1.964

3

0.580

ras_willingness

null

3

446.540

454.668

-220.270

440.540

ras_willingness

random

6

447.281

463.538

-217.640

435.281

5.259

3

0.154

ras_goal

null

3

552.330

560.458

-273.165

546.330

ras_goal

random

6

553.875

570.132

-270.938

541.875

4.454

3

0.216

ras_reliance

null

3

515.631

523.760

-254.816

509.631

ras_reliance

random

6

512.986

529.243

-250.493

500.986

8.645

3

0.034

ras_domination

null

3

487.053

495.181

-240.526

481.053

ras_domination

random

6

487.559

503.816

-237.780

475.559

5.493

3

0.139

symptom

null

3

775.303

783.432

-384.652

769.303

symptom

random

6

780.214

796.472

-384.107

768.214

1.089

3

0.780

slof_work

null

3

630.385

638.514

-312.193

624.385

slof_work

random

6

630.971

647.228

-309.485

618.971

5.414

3

0.144

slof_relationship

null

3

682.277

690.406

-338.138

676.277

slof_relationship

random

6

686.466

702.723

-337.233

674.466

1.811

3

0.613

satisfaction

null

3

725.915

734.043

-359.957

719.915

satisfaction

random

6

728.706

744.963

-358.353

716.706

3.208

3

0.361

mhc_emotional

null

3

578.896

587.025

-286.448

572.896

mhc_emotional

random

6

582.329

598.586

-285.165

570.329

2.567

3

0.463

mhc_social

null

3

674.294

682.422

-334.147

668.294

mhc_social

random

6

677.983

694.241

-332.992

665.983

2.310

3

0.511

mhc_psychological

null

3

700.825

708.953

-347.412

694.825

mhc_psychological

random

6

705.456

721.713

-346.728

693.456

1.369

3

0.713

resilisnce

null

3

616.732

624.861

-305.366

610.732

resilisnce

random

6

621.439

637.696

-304.720

609.439

1.293

3

0.731

social_provision

null

3

547.476

555.604

-270.738

541.476

social_provision

random

6

548.289

564.546

-268.145

536.289

5.187

3

0.159

els_value_living

null

3

527.024

535.153

-260.512

521.024

els_value_living

random

6

529.191

545.449

-258.596

517.191

3.833

3

0.280

els_life_fulfill

null

3

547.162

555.290

-270.581

541.162

els_life_fulfill

random

6

543.786

560.043

-265.893

531.786

9.376

3

0.025

els

null

3

662.240

670.369

-328.120

656.240

els

random

6

660.282

676.539

-324.141

648.282

7.958

3

0.047

social_connect

null

3

767.704

775.833

-380.852

761.704

social_connect

random

6

772.635

788.892

-380.317

760.635

1.070

3

0.784

shs_agency

null

3

643.581

651.709

-318.790

637.581

shs_agency

random

6

647.173

663.430

-317.587

635.173

2.408

3

0.492

shs_pathway

null

3

588.255

596.384

-291.128

582.255

shs_pathway

random

6

593.323

609.580

-290.661

581.323

0.933

3

0.818

shs

null

3

755.545

763.674

-374.773

749.545

shs

random

6

759.844

776.101

-373.922

747.844

1.701

3

0.637

esteem

null

3

393.117

401.246

-193.559

387.117

esteem

random

6

396.809

413.066

-192.404

384.809

2.309

3

0.511

mlq_search

null

3

572.674

580.803

-283.337

566.674

mlq_search

random

6

578.125

594.383

-283.063

566.125

0.549

3

0.908

mlq_presence

null

3

606.841

614.969

-300.420

600.841

mlq_presence

random

6

612.766

629.023

-300.383

600.766

0.074

3

0.995

mlq

null

3

722.160

730.289

-358.080

716.160

mlq

random

6

727.899

744.156

-357.950

715.899

0.261

3

0.967

empower

null

3

591.475

599.603

-292.737

585.475

empower

random

6

595.396

611.653

-291.698

583.396

2.079

3

0.556

ismi_resistance

null

3

513.826

521.954

-253.913

507.826

ismi_resistance

random

6

518.825

535.082

-253.412

506.825

1.001

3

0.801

ismi_discrimation

null

3

548.476

556.604

-271.238

542.476

ismi_discrimation

random

6

547.759

564.016

-267.880

535.759

6.717

3

0.081

sss_affective

null

3

572.066

580.195

-283.033

566.066

sss_affective

random

6

572.460

588.717

-280.230

560.460

5.606

3

0.132

sss_behavior

null

3

588.289

596.418

-291.145

582.289

sss_behavior

random

6

589.165

605.422

-288.583

577.165

5.124

3

0.163

sss_cognitive

null

3

582.787

590.916

-288.394

576.787

sss_cognitive

random

6

581.159

597.416

-284.579

569.159

7.628

3

0.054

sss

null

3

798.448

806.577

-396.224

792.448

sss

random

6

797.923

814.180

-392.961

785.923

6.526

3

0.089

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

36

3.11 ± 1.22

36

3.14 ± 1.22

0.923

-0.028

recovery_stage_a

2nd

20

3.27 ± 1.20

-0.160

19

3.48 ± 1.20

-0.348

0.577

-0.216

recovery_stage_b

1st

36

17.92 ± 2.69

36

18.03 ± 2.69

0.861

-0.054

recovery_stage_b

2nd

20

17.55 ± 2.60

0.179

19

18.56 ± 2.60

-0.257

0.230

-0.490

ras_confidence

1st

36

29.78 ± 5.03

36

30.94 ± 5.03

0.328

-0.436

ras_confidence

2nd

20

30.13 ± 4.43

-0.130

19

31.56 ± 4.39

-0.231

0.312

-0.537

ras_willingness

1st

36

11.92 ± 2.00

36

12.28 ± 2.00

0.445

-0.345

ras_willingness

2nd

20

11.29 ± 1.75

0.603

19

12.12 ± 1.74

0.155

0.140

-0.793

ras_goal

1st

36

17.47 ± 3.14

36

17.53 ± 3.14

0.940

-0.031

ras_goal

2nd

20

16.56 ± 2.82

0.500

19

18.14 ± 2.80

-0.338

0.083

-0.869

ras_reliance

1st

36

12.97 ± 2.75

36

13.44 ± 2.75

0.469

-0.356

ras_reliance

2nd

20

13.43 ± 2.37

-0.342

19

14.51 ± 2.34

-0.805

0.153

-0.820

ras_domination

1st

36

10.39 ± 2.20

36

9.44 ± 2.20

0.072

0.601

ras_domination

2nd

20

9.82 ± 2.10

0.360

19

10.25 ± 2.09

-0.513

0.526

-0.272

symptom

1st

36

31.00 ± 9.83

36

29.22 ± 9.83

0.445

0.467

symptom

2nd

20

31.10 ± 8.11

-0.026

19

28.58 ± 7.99

0.168

0.331

0.661

slof_work

1st

36

22.69 ± 4.96

36

22.75 ± 4.96

0.962

-0.028

slof_work

2nd

20

21.97 ± 4.11

0.365

19

21.46 ± 4.06

0.647

0.699

0.255

slof_relationship

1st

36

25.53 ± 5.99

36

25.94 ± 5.99

0.769

-0.142

slof_relationship

2nd

20

24.47 ± 5.17

0.363

19

25.54 ± 5.12

0.139

0.517

-0.367

satisfaction

1st

36

19.25 ± 6.97

36

22.14 ± 6.97

0.082

-0.744

satisfaction

2nd

20

19.99 ± 6.21

-0.190

19

21.69 ± 6.16

0.117

0.393

-0.438

mhc_emotional

1st

36

10.78 ± 3.82

36

11.61 ± 3.82

0.357

-0.475

mhc_emotional

2nd

20

11.25 ± 3.25

-0.267

19

10.95 ± 3.21

0.378

0.774

0.170

mhc_social

1st

36

15.31 ± 5.65

36

14.75 ± 5.65

0.678

0.188

mhc_social

2nd

20

16.35 ± 4.96

-0.354

19

14.24 ± 4.91

0.172

0.186

0.714

mhc_psychological

1st

36

21.89 ± 6.39

36

22.64 ± 6.39

0.620

-0.225

mhc_psychological

2nd

20

22.50 ± 5.61

-0.182

19

21.62 ± 5.56

0.304

0.626

0.262

resilisnce

1st

36

16.17 ± 4.33

36

16.83 ± 4.33

0.515

-0.283

resilisnce

2nd

20

16.37 ± 3.83

-0.088

19

17.38 ± 3.80

-0.234

0.411

-0.429

social_provision

1st

36

13.28 ± 3.01

36

14.03 ± 3.01

0.294

-0.408

social_provision

2nd

20

12.35 ± 2.75

0.506

19

14.00 ± 2.73

0.013

0.062

-0.901

els_value_living

1st

36

16.61 ± 2.93

36

17.89 ± 2.93

0.068

-0.872

els_value_living

2nd

20

16.90 ± 2.54

-0.194

19

17.97 ± 2.52

-0.055

0.188

-0.733

els_life_fulfill

1st

36

11.78 ± 3.10

36

13.75 ± 3.10

0.009

-1.239

els_life_fulfill

2nd

20

12.70 ± 2.71

-0.581

19

13.76 ± 2.68

-0.008

0.222

-0.667

els

1st

36

28.39 ± 5.42

36

31.64 ± 5.42

0.013

-1.301

els

2nd

20

29.57 ± 4.62

-0.472

19

31.74 ± 4.57

-0.040

0.143

-0.869

social_connect

1st

36

27.61 ± 9.49

36

26.33 ± 9.49

0.570

0.347

social_connect

2nd

20

28.42 ± 7.83

-0.220

19

26.15 ± 7.72

0.051

0.364

0.617

shs_agency

1st

36

13.89 ± 4.96

36

15.06 ± 4.96

0.321

-0.463

shs_agency

2nd

20

14.17 ± 4.32

-0.110

19

15.80 ± 4.28

-0.296

0.238

-0.649

shs_pathway

1st

36

16.22 ± 3.94

36

17.00 ± 3.94

0.405

-0.406

shs_pathway

2nd

20

16.57 ± 3.40

-0.180

19

16.98 ± 3.36

0.009

0.703

-0.216

shs

1st

36

30.11 ± 8.39

36

32.06 ± 8.39

0.329

-0.485

shs

2nd

20

30.74 ± 7.21

-0.156

19

32.79 ± 7.13

-0.184

0.373

-0.513

esteem

1st

36

12.83 ± 1.41

36

12.47 ± 1.41

0.280

0.297

esteem

2nd

20

13.01 ± 1.41

-0.145

19

12.80 ± 1.41

-0.273

0.648

0.169

mlq_search

1st

36

14.81 ± 3.39

36

15.03 ± 3.39

0.781

-0.101

mlq_search

2nd

20

14.42 ± 3.15

0.173

19

14.99 ± 3.13

0.015

0.572

-0.258

mlq_presence

1st

36

13.47 ± 4.05

36

13.53 ± 4.05

0.954

-0.023

mlq_presence

2nd

20

13.36 ± 3.68

0.044

19

13.65 ± 3.65

-0.052

0.805

-0.120

mlq

1st

36

28.28 ± 6.75

36

28.56 ± 6.75

0.862

-0.067

mlq

2nd

20

27.78 ± 6.18

0.119

19

28.64 ± 6.14

-0.020

0.665

-0.206

empower

1st

36

19.11 ± 4.02

36

19.92 ± 4.02

0.398

-0.427

empower

2nd

20

18.85 ± 3.44

0.138

19

19.25 ± 3.40

0.352

0.715

-0.213

ismi_resistance

1st

36

14.31 ± 2.51

36

14.89 ± 2.51

0.327

-0.313

ismi_resistance

2nd

20

14.49 ± 2.42

-0.098

19

14.76 ± 2.41

0.070

0.728

-0.145

ismi_discrimation

1st

36

12.22 ± 3.15

36

10.36 ± 3.15

0.014

1.140

ismi_discrimation

2nd

20

11.71 ± 2.76

0.312

19

10.78 ± 2.73

-0.259

0.293

0.568

sss_affective

1st

36

10.50 ± 3.70

36

9.44 ± 3.70

0.229

0.647

sss_affective

2nd

20

10.71 ± 3.12

-0.131

19

8.58 ± 3.09

0.530

0.034

1.307

sss_behavior

1st

36

10.39 ± 3.76

36

8.92 ± 3.76

0.100

0.730

sss_behavior

2nd

20

10.11 ± 3.32

0.140

19

8.19 ± 3.29

0.362

0.073

0.951

sss_cognitive

1st

36

8.61 ± 3.90

36

8.00 ± 3.90

0.509

0.372

sss_cognitive

2nd

20

9.64 ± 3.27

-0.625

19

7.20 ± 3.22

0.486

0.021

1.483

sss

1st

36

29.50 ± 10.56

36

26.36 ± 10.56

0.211

0.749

sss

2nd

20

30.55 ± 8.75

-0.250

19

24.04 ± 8.62

0.554

0.021

1.553

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(99.44) = 0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.60)

2st

t(106.53) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.97)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(96.10) = 0.18, p = 0.861, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.37)

2st

t(106.56) = 1.21, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.66)

ras_confidence

1st

t(81.83) = 0.98, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.19 to 3.53)

2st

t(106.18) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-1.37 to 4.24)

ras_willingness

1st

t(81.51) = 0.77, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.30)

2st

t(106.03) = 1.49, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.94)

ras_goal

1st

t(84.30) = 0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.53)

2st

t(106.85) = 1.75, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.21 to 3.36)

ras_reliance

1st

t(79.55) = 0.73, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.76)

2st

t(104.67) = 1.44, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.58)

ras_domination

1st

t(92.56) = -1.82, p = 0.072, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.09)

2st

t(106.72) = 0.64, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.76)

symptom

1st

t(75.96) = -0.77, p = 0.445, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-6.39 to 2.83)

2st

t(98.85) = -0.98, p = 0.331, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-7.63 to 2.60)

slof_work

1st

t(76.47) = 0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.27 to 2.38)

2st

t(100.04) = -0.39, p = 0.699, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.10 to 2.09)

slof_relationship

1st

t(79.84) = 0.30, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.39 to 3.23)

2st

t(104.93) = 0.65, p = 0.517, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.20 to 4.34)

satisfaction

1st

t(83.15) = 1.76, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.38 to 6.16)

2st

t(106.63) = 0.86, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-2.23 to 5.63)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(78.63) = 0.93, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.96 to 2.62)

2st

t(103.67) = -0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.35 to 1.76)

mhc_social

1st

t(81.39) = -0.42, p = 0.678, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.21 to 2.09)

2st

t(105.98) = -1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-5.24 to 1.03)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(81.41) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-2.25 to 3.75)

2st

t(105.99) = -0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-4.42 to 2.67)

resilisnce

1st

t(82.46) = 0.65, p = 0.515, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.70)

2st

t(106.43) = 0.83, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.41 to 3.43)

social_provision

1st

t(86.06) = 1.06, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.16)

2st

t(106.99) = 1.89, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-0.08 to 3.40)

els_value_living

1st

t(80.37) = 1.85, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.65)

2st

t(105.35) = 1.32, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.68)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(80.96) = 2.70, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (0.52 to 3.43)

2st

t(105.74) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.77)

els

1st

t(78.69) = 2.55, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.30, 95% CI (0.71 to 5.79)

2st

t(103.75) = 1.48, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.75 to 5.09)

social_connect

1st

t(75.98) = -0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-5.73 to 3.18)

2st

t(98.88) = -0.91, p = 0.364, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-7.21 to 2.67)

shs_agency

1st

t(80.74) = 1.00, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.16 to 3.49)

2st

t(105.60) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.09 to 4.37)

shs_pathway

1st

t(79.75) = 0.84, p = 0.405, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.63)

2st

t(104.86) = 0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.56)

shs

1st

t(79.37) = 0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.99 to 5.88)

2st

t(104.50) = 0.90, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-2.50 to 6.61)

esteem

1st

t(102.38) = -1.09, p = 0.280, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.30)

2st

t(106.63) = -0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.69)

mlq_search

1st

t(88.66) = 0.28, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.81)

2st

t(106.95) = 0.57, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.42 to 2.56)

mlq_presence

1st

t(85.38) = 0.06, p = 0.954, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.84 to 1.95)

2st

t(106.96) = 0.25, p = 0.805, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.62)

mlq

1st

t(86.41) = 0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.89 to 3.44)

2st

t(107.00) = 0.43, p = 0.665, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.05 to 4.77)

empower

1st

t(79.00) = 0.85, p = 0.398, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.69)

2st

t(104.11) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.58)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(94.57) = 0.98, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.76)

2st

t(106.61) = 0.35, p = 0.728, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.80)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(81.23) = -2.51, p = 0.014, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-3.34 to -0.38)

2st

t(105.89) = -1.06, p = 0.293, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.67 to 0.81)

sss_affective

1st

t(77.90) = -1.21, p = 0.229, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.79 to 0.68)

2st

t(102.67) = -2.15, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 1.31, 95% CI (-4.11 to -0.16)

sss_behavior

1st

t(82.11) = -1.66, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-3.23 to 0.29)

2st

t(106.30) = -1.81, p = 0.073, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-4.02 to 0.18)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(77.12) = -0.66, p = 0.509, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.44 to 1.22)

2st

t(101.36) = -2.34, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 1.48, 95% CI (-4.50 to -0.37)

sss

1st

t(76.27) = -1.26, p = 0.211, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-8.10 to 1.82)

2st

t(99.59) = -2.34, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 1.55, 95% CI (-12.03 to -0.99)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(52.88) = 1.16, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.94)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(50.57) = 0.85, p = 0.803, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.78)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.69) = 0.73, p = 0.935, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.32)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(42.53) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.50)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.93) = 1.08, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.76)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.56) = 2.54, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.92)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(48.40) = 1.67, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.77)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.83) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.10 to 1.82)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(40.08) = -2.03, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.58 to -0.00)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.71) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.27 to 1.46)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(43.35) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.00)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(41.12) = -1.19, p = 0.482, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.46)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(42.47) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.38 to 1.37)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(42.48) = -0.96, p = 0.680, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.14 to 1.11)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(43.01) = 0.74, p = 0.922, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.04)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(44.84) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.13)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.97) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.01)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(42.26) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.03)

els

1st vs 2st

t(41.15) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.70)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.84) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.56 to 2.19)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(42.15) = 0.94, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.35)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.67) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.21)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.48) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.83 to 3.30)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(55.29) = 0.92, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.06)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(46.22) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.34)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(44.49) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.65)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(45.02) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.52 to 2.69)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(41.30) = -1.11, p = 0.546, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.54)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(49.60) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.01)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(42.39) = 0.82, p = 0.832, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.46)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.76) = -1.67, p = 0.207, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.18)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.83) = -1.15, p = 0.514, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.55)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.39) = -1.53, p = 0.269, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.26)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.98) = -1.74, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.03 to 0.38)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(51.82) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.74)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(49.67) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.86)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.33) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.01)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(42.18) = -1.96, p = 0.114, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.02)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.49) = -1.64, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.21)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.28) = 1.10, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(47.65) = -1.20, p = 0.471, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.38)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.66) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.50)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(39.89) = -1.17, p = 0.497, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.53)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.41) = -1.17, p = 0.494, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.89 to 0.76)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(42.95) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.66 to 3.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(40.86) = 0.86, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.57)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(42.13) = 1.15, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.88)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(42.14) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.68)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.63) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.67)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(44.34) = -1.66, p = 0.207, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.20)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.66) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.20)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(41.93) = 1.88, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.91)

els

1st vs 2st

t(40.89) = 1.52, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.74)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.67) = 0.70, p = 0.971, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.51 to 3.13)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(41.83) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.85)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.38) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.54)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.20) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.13)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(54.07) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.89)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(45.62) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.97)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(44.01) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.38)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(44.51) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.04 to 2.06)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(41.03) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.92)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(48.77) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.30)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(42.05) = -1.01, p = 0.633, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.51)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.53) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.24)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.46) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.97)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.18) = 2.01, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.06)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.80) = 0.80, p = 0.855, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.68)

Plot

Clinical significance